Considered and decided by Wright,
Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge;
and Parker, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Appellant Chris T. Skelton challenges
the district court’s harassment restraining order issued pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 609.748, subd. 5(a) (2004), arguing he was not provided a full hearing. Because the district court did not swear in
the witnesses before receiving their testimony, we vacate the order and remand
for a full hearing.

FACTS

In June
2004, respondent Pam L. Secklin requested the district court issue a restraining
order prohibiting Skelton from having any contact with her and requiring that
he stay away from her residence and her place of employment. Secklin alleged that after ending a brief
relationship she had with Skelton, he made unwanted visits to her home,
verbally abused her, made unwanted phone calls to her, and sent her numerous
emails. Based on Secklin’s petition and
accompanying statement, the district court issued a harassment restraining
order prohibiting Skelton from having any contact with Secklin.

After
Skelton was served with a copy of the order, he requested a hearing under Minn.
Stat. § 609.748 (2004) to challenge the order. Both Secklin and Skelton offered testimony at
the hearing, but the district court did not swear in either person. Following the hearing, the district court
issued a harassment restraining order prohibiting Skelton from having any
contact with Secklin for two years.

D E C I S I O N

In Anderson v. Lake, 536 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Minn. App. 1995), this
court held that “the hearing required under Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
5(a), includes the right to examine witnesses and that witnesses must testify under oath if the order is
to be given effect for longer than 14 days.”
(Emphasis added). The district
court’s findings to support a restraining order must be based upon testimony
and documents that are properly received into evidence. Id.at 911-12. For testimony to be properly received, the
district court must require witnesses to take an oath consistent with Minn. R. Evid.
603 before testifying. Id.at 911. We concluded in Lake that a
person subject to a harassment restraining order intended to remain in effect
for longer than 14 daysis entitled
to a new hearing if these procedures are not followed. Id. at
912.

Here, the district court did not swear in the
witnesses before receiving their testimony.
Therefore, Skelton was not provided a full hearing before the district
court issued a restraining order to be in effect for two years, and he is
entitled to a new hearing.